A Brief Overview

Cause of action gives the legal right to a claimant to make the claim. They are the key facts that entitle the claimant to seek remedy in the court of law through a suit or a claim. It is considered as the legally recognised wrong giving the ground to a person to sue the wrongdoer.

For example, if the case is regarding inheritance, the lack of financial provision in a Will for a dependent of the deceased may be considered a sufficient cause of action.

The cause of action should be proper. For example, trespassing unjustifiably without permission, gives a good cause of action. A claim should have a proper ground or else the court will dismiss the claim. Establishing a cause of action is the first step towards a remedy from the court.

Grounds for action means the proper grounds or reasons to make a claim in the court. The grounds of action are needed to fulfil the criteria to establish the claim. The facts of the case will determine whether a claim has the appropriate ground or reasons. The facts should be sufficient to bring a suit, application or a claim in the court of law. If you are seeking law dissertation help, understanding the grounds for action is crucial in building a strong legal argument.

The difference between the cause of action and the ground for actions is that the cause of action is the set of facts that gives rise to the claim or the suit, whereas the ground for action is the reason justifying the claims. Referring to the above example regarding the lack of financial provision, if the dependent has been financially dependent on the deceased settlor during the settlor’s lifetime, it is reasonable to expect that the settlor leaves a financial provision for the dependent after the settlor’s death. Thus, the lack of financial provision causes the suit or the claim as not leaving a financial support for the dependent is not reasonable, which justifies the suit or the claim.

Legal reasoning is application of a law to the facts and evidence of a case. For an attorney, it will involve identifying the relevant law and precedents and reviewing them with the facts of a case and integrating them to make a persuasive argument.

Legal reasoning is driven by a desired outcome. It is not about reaching a right decision. It is making a persuasive, best argument that favours the client. Thus, it involves reviewing and using the evidence and making relevant legal arguments. Attorneys will thus review the facts of the case in a cohesive manner that fits the appropriate law. They will conduct necessary legal research to that effect and structure the arguments in a compelling way.

For example, a Deed of Settlement says that “From this day forward, my trustee John Smith is to hold 200 of the vintage wine bottles in my cellar on trust for my nephew, July.” A lawyer will consider the applicable tests of certainties – whether he was certain of his intention, whether he was certain which 200 vintage wine bottles he was talking about, and whether he was certain that July will be the beneficiary. The lawyer must apply these certainties principles referring to case laws principles. The statement does not show certainties as to which 200 bottles he mentioned. Thus, the deed is not valid.

Judges also apply such legal reasoning while making a decision. They also will seek appropriate legal authority and applicable case law principles. They may also bring new interpretations of the facts or considerations of legal principles additional to those mentioned by the attorneys.

Thus, legal reasoning is arguments based on reasoning or judicial decision based on reasoning. The fact of the case occupies a crucial role and the law should be explicitly applied to the fact. The purpose is to apply the real intention of the statutes.

A legal case brief is a document prepared by a solicitor stating a summary or abstract in the form of instructions for a barrister to follow in court. It is used when arguing a pre-trial motion in a case or proceeding. The barrister acts on behalf of a litigant with this instruction from the solicitor. Thus, the brief will have instructions regarding the evidence and proof, statements and interviews of witnesses.

A legal case brief normally is structured in the manner of listing the facts of the case, including the names of the parties, the events (facts, procedures) occurred, legal issues in the case, applicable law, and the case law reasonings.

A legal case brief can be Merit briefs that summarises inherent rights and wrongs of the case without any emotional or technical biases. It can be an amicus briefs by a party who/which is not a direct party to the case but has a direct interest in the outcome of the case.

A legal brief because of its usefulness can help represent a client effectively. Thus, an effective brief is the one that identifies the correct issues in the case; cites the proper precedents and statutes; and crafts a compelling legal argument.

Looking for further insights on Your Partner Application? Click here.

Model Case Brief Template and Sample:

Case:

Name of the case, (and year of the decision).

Facts:

Who are the parties to the lawsuit, what is their dispute, and how did they get to the Supreme Court? In your own words, only include the few important facts necessary to understand the case; e.g. the time of day a defendant was arrested is usually not important, etc.

Issue:

What is the basic legal question regarding what specific provision of law that is to be decided in the case?

Holding:

What is the majority’s basic answer to the basic legal question in the case. Also include the vote count: majority/plurality—concurrence(s)—dissent(s)

***Majority Opinion Reasoning:

What is the majority’s explanation why it reached its holding? You will want to create a summarized, condensed, paraphrased outline of the court’s reasoning. The reasoning simply consists of two things: the RULE and the APPLICATION (of the rule to the facts of the case):

Rule:

What rule of law is announced in the case?

Application

How does the rule of law specifically apply given the specific facts of the case at issue? In other words, given the rule of law that should apply, which party wins according to that rule given the facts of the case being heard?

Concurring Opinion(s) Reasoning:

What is the reasoning of each separate concurrence (justices who agreed with the majority’s holding but disagreed with the majority’s reasoning)? How do they differ in their proposed rule or application (or both)?

Dissenting Opinion(s) Reasoning:

What is the reasoning of each separate dissent (justices who disagreed with both the majority’s holding and its reasoning)? How do they differ in their proposed rule or application (or both)?